A dramatic late penalty try denied Wales a first ever win in South Africa, as the Springboks fought back twice to snatch victory at the death. It was an agonising 31-30 defeat for the Welsh, who led for 78 minutes before referee Steve Walsh's big decision.

After a tense start to the game, in which Wales put up far more of a fight than last week, the visitors shot out to 17-0 lead following tries to Jamie Roberts and the outstanding Alex Cuthbert.

Late in the half the Springboks came back, putting enourmous pressure on the Welsh close to the tryline, leading to two yellow cards and a penalty try. By halftime the Boks trailed by just three points, 17-14, but Wales started the second well, scoring a controversial try through Ken Owens.

Dan Biggar extended the lead to 13 points with ten minutes remaining, as the Springboks trailed 30-17 and looked set for their first ever loss to Wales at home, after a performance that was anything but what they displayed in Durban a week earlier.

Willie Le Roux had a strong second half though, scoring a try himself and helping Cornal Hendricks to not only a try, but an opportunity to score in the corner with time almost up.

Wales fullback Liam Williams came in for what was an incredible try saving tackle, but made with no use of the arms, so Walsh stepped up and after conferring with the TMO, dramatically awarded a penalty try in what one has to say was one of the most dramatic decisions of recent times.

Biggar came close with a drop goal in the final seconds, but it went wide and South Africa hung on to take the series 2-0 ahead of a meeting with Scotland in Port Elizabeth next weekend.

"As a collective, we can be proud moving forward," said Wales tour captain Alun-Wyn Jones. "This is not the result we would have wanted going into the off season, but definitely the performance."

Following the match prop Samson Lee received a citing for an alleged second half headbutt that occurred shortly before the Owens try in the second half. The hearing was last night but the result has been deferred until midweek.

It was a Test match of epic proportions, with multiple talking points, so feel free to discuss in the comments rather than have each and every incident or dramatic moment written about here. We'll get better quality highlights posted when possible, but for now the below clip should cover it.

That seemed petty. I understand the frustration, but if you are going to make a hit like that, throw your shoulder in and get your weight into them, not over the top of them, and definitely don't throw an elbow/forearm in and try to bump them into touch. If you have to be a niggly player, at least that gives you the option to land on top, and if you are a proper dirty bastard, get a bit of 'Rolling Pin" involved.

Had he attacked the hit properly, there would not have been a score. In a situation like that, there would obviously have been a TMO decision, and in slow motion there is no hiding the petulance. What was he thinking? You can see him adjust to bring his forearm and elbow into play.

Well played by the winger, he didn't cause a fuss. Habana take note, this is how you take a cheap shot like a man.

80 minutes of big men running at each other. Not really champagne rugby, but an entertaining game none the less.

I wonder if Williams is actually all there. I mean, he seems to do this stupid, petulant stuff all the time and he cost his team the match with this ridiculous act. Normally backs are the calm, collected players because they know they can't get away with stuff like that against people bigger than them, but he does it all the time. If I was Welsh I'd want to see him as far as possible in future from a Welsh jersey.

Great decision by Walsh though. If he hadn't given that penalty try it would have been a travesty. I'm not at all a fan of his but he got it spot on.

Some of these people don't know how to lose. I'm not saying the new crop haven't put the hard yards in, but if you have been treated like a race horse for 10 years before you even put on the international shirt, what genuine perspective do you have on things other than "Look at me, I must be better than anybody else"

Like Cipriani, Haskell and Sonny Bill, going on their travels might make them more rounded players (if we ignore SBW's circumstances for globetrotting...)

Brian O'Driscoll summed it up perfectly "My whole life has been about rugby, but there is so much more to it than that".

There is so much more to the sport and life than success and the attainment of perceived 'perfection' - even Wilkinson realised this, and completely changed him as a player.

Lay off the protein shakes, stop taking all the legal anabolic boosters, use that pace next time you hear the ice cream van, and take 10 minutes to chill the f*ck out!

It is quite amazing how Wilkinson changed. He has always played extremely well, but in his later years when he started playing in France he actually looked like he was enjoying himself and accompanying that, he looked BETTER than he used to be. I know with experience you become better, but he looked better than experience could make him just by sorting out his headspace.

Wilkinson turned to Bouddhism after being injured 15 times in a row in 4 years.
There's a 23 min long video in French about him on Youtube, that i have translated in the comments:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEo6zqRTNc

I'm Welsh and I'm very excited by the prospect of seeing him in the Welsh jersey for years to come. As a Scarlets fan I can assure you he has tremendous talent, good pace, and great determination & will to win. It's not right to solely blame him for the defeat, Wales made mistakes to put themselves in that position. Late in the game they were 30-17 up, a great side would have closed that out.

Of course Williams is niggly, it is part of his game. Pretty entertaining too at times in the Rabo... but in Internationals you have to work harder to appear squeaky clean. The game was over for Wales before that hit really as they shouldn't give up such a lead. I another game Williams may well have got away with suck a covering tackle and won the game for Wales. That is just the entertainment of sport!

Very entertaining game, mostly because of the number of errors, the Boks comeback & the finale. Overall Wales were the superior team, with several players really upping their game from last week's mauling. A real pity that their efforts were wasted by the action of one player. Liam Williams would not have been on this tour except for the injury to Leigh 1/2p. His petulance & known lack of discipline was overlooked by Gatty, who probably now regrets selecting him ahead of James Hook at 15. I'm not a huge fan of Steve Walsh but I thought he was on top form here & didn't back away from any call. Some consideration has be be given as to whether Williams should be selected again - his love of the 'cheap shot' is becoming more than just an embarrassment.

You sound awfully bitter, Liam Williams is an outstanding young player, and I'm sorry if this upsets you but you're going to be seeing a lot more of him in the future. You're getting carried away with yourself, he didn't throw a punch at anyone, he just made a desperate, last-ditch tackle without using his arms, he'll learn and come back stronger. Also Steve Walsh...what game were you watching? aside from the penalty try decision at the end (which he got right) he had an absolute shocker.

Considering you feel that a player getting a yellow card and a penalty try being awarded for pulling down a maul is a wrong decision, I'm not entirely convinced you are in any position to question the refereeing ability of Steve Walsh...

Your opinion of Walsh's performance is not a widely shared one ; 'an absolute shocker' sounds 'awfully bitter'.
The fact that Liam Williams is an outstanding young player is not at issue here, or anywhere else where rugby is discussed. The issue is why William's discipline is so poor, and as other posters have pointed out here, not only in this game.
If you really believe that such is not the case, ask yourself this ; would you be happy to see your son behave as Williams does ?.
I would also ask that you refrain from personalising your response to other posters - suggesting that people should 'take their medication' is insulting and childish. I respect your opinion - don't trash other peoples.

We're a sensitive bunch here aren't we? If I think somebody is wrong or being silly I'll say so, that's what generally happens in forums.

Ask any Welsh fan or neutral who watched the game and they'll probably have some issue with Mr Walsh's handling of the match.

'would I be happy to see my son behave as Williams does?' I'd be delighted, you say that like he's killed someone, he conducts himself perfectly well most of the time, just gets a bit over-zealous with his tackling sometimes, no need for hysterial reactions.

Every single time. I felt we deserved this one though. More comedy gold from North in defence again.
I thought Gethin Jenkins was incredible, body on the line all game and practically covered us at 7. The Williams tackle was stupid and clearly a penalty but a penalty try? Tough call although I thought Walsh reffed pretty well.

First of all, fair play to Wales. Hammered last Saturday, but absolutely on their game yesterday.

Second, a reminder to us bok supporters, that we need our best players back if we are to be consistently strong.

And thirdly, that final penalty try. That tackle gets worse every time you look at it. I don't know if Williams has past history, but that was a disgusting no-arms charge into an opponents head. Stuart Hogg was rightly red carded and banned when he did something similar against Wales, I don't see how Williams gets off with less.

Good on Gatland not making any excuses, but it was a horror tackle, the kind that should be dealt with severely.

I love some of the hysterical reactions you get from various posters on here. If you think that was a 'horror tackle' you haven't been watching rugby long. It was an illegal tackle which we have to accept are sometimes inevitable in a contact sport such as rugby.

Alright so V Matfield telling AW Jones to go away is another (very nice and flattering) example of mutual respect at the current elite level of our sport, 2nd: the Bokke supporters exhibit a very respectful attitude towards them Welsh, as seen in their body language.

Liam Williams is a bit of a pup. His biggest attribute is his ability to turn defence into attack but he also possesses a darker side. Notice how when he is bundled into touch or tackles another player into touch, that opponent immediately becomes enraged afterwards, suggesting he has an antagonistic nature.

Fair enough, bundle someone into touch. Fair enough, let them know you've bundled them like a sack of spuds. Don't get all pushy and shovey because you just about managed to scrag someone into the whitewash.

It seems that he can't impose himself on a player or game physically, so he gets nasty.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the "Dark Arts", "Handbags" and Sledging, because it is mostly harmless. Those involved know it is a bit tongue in cheek, and adds a bit of excitement to the game. Obviously I don't condone the rubbish that slips into red card territory, but a scuffle or two keeps the blood pumping.

Look at the Canada vs Scotland game. First scrum of the match, they pulled a hockey style 'line brawl' play. Nothing happened, some big blokes squared up to each other, and a bit of "you let go first" hugging and swatting later, the crowd went ballistic.

Big hit and a bit of a ruckus? Hats off Mr Defender, you just lifted your whole team.

Half arsed hit and a few nasty words? Football stadium is that way -->

It is an unwritten rule of the paddock, everybody knows the guillotine, grapple, rolling pin and chicken wing tackle, it is easy to drop your knee in a ruck or tread on a hand, but you just don't do it. Because you also know exactly what it feels like. Austin Healey was an irritating little sh*t, but he never did any of that rubbish, and got under the skin of more teams than Williams ever will.

Mate, that whole post is awesome, but the money-shot is in these two lines:
"Big hit and a bit of a ruckus? Hats off Mr Defender, you just lifted your whole team.

Half arsed hit and a few nasty words? Football stadium is that way --> "

I can't stand Liam Williams. Every time I've seen him play he seems to be putting in nasty cheap shots. The one that stands out in my memory is that pathetic, unnecessary, late "challenge" (don't know what to call it, there was certainly no attempt at a tackle involved), on Paddy Jackson in the 6 nations earlier this year. Try already scored, absolutely nothing Williams could do about it, but slid in and clattered the bloke while he was in a vulnerable position. I really wanted Rob Kearney to lamp him...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-XGWHmIVeo

I got a swift reprimand from Mr Dump the last time I described a player as a "dirty f***er", so I won't do that again here, even if the epithet is 100% applicable.

Slight over-reaction, take a trip to any high-security prison and you'll encounter a selection of rapists, murderers, paedophiles, hardened criminals among other unsavoury characters, I wouldn't put Mike Phillips in that category, arrogant as he may be.

As Canadian content is aware, because he watched the video and because he didn't arrive on RD ten minutes ago, Mike Phillips is something of a repeat offender. He cannot let a fight go without getting involved. He can't let a little bit of glaring go without it being a fight. He is basically as badly behaved as my two year old during one of her mood swings.

However to help you out, once you discount any human being who has actually raped, murdered, had sexual encounters with children, and become hardened to the world of crime, then Mike Phillips is left looking distinctly more unpleasant than most.

Oh yes Dan, but I'm not sure you're right, I mean of course there are still those sorts of people which spit in public and never wash and swear, hoot and roar in public, and I think Mike Phillips is more pleasant than them...

Oh and football fans, I think Mike Phillips is more pleasant than them too....

Look, it's nice to have someone new on here, but the fact is, you've come in, all guns blazing and made wild comments that are frankly outrageous.

You can; again, tell people to take their medication, which you view as fine, but when someone calls you a name then it's wrong.
You call my comment facetious, when above you have literally stated showing sarcasm, signs of humour etc are 'strictly prohibited'...

Frankly you'd have been better off scoping this site out for a day or two with a couple of quite introductory comments, stating how you feel perhaps some of the decisions weren't correct, instead of flying in here and prancing about like a one eyed Welshman...

'wild comments that are frankly outrageous' lol, this exactly the kind of hysterical over-reaction I'm talking about, what exactly have I said that was so outrageous? After just a few posts you called me a 'dick' for no reason, not that I'm arsed but you seem the type who loves preaching about rules to other people yet you clearly can't follow simple forum rules...smh.

Telling people to 'take their medication' when you think they're being silly commonly passes as harmless banter amongst men, if you think this is abusive or offensive you need to get out more.

Stop being a wannabe mod. There hasn't been, and won't be, any abuse in any of my posts, forums are generally places for people to vent their opinions, if you don't like mine I suggest you don't read them.

I'm not sure why I'm bothered by someone who thinks a referee shouldn't award a penalty try AND a card to someone because he already carded a player on their team...

..you're boring me on here and you're lagging behind. There have been many more topics on this site since this one. Don't hold onto this Welsh loss, it's in the past as is this whole affair between yourself and I (for me anyway)... I look forward to catching up on the next topic we disagree on.

Interesting, didn't you JUST say "There hasn't been, and won't be, any abuse in any of my posts"...

Look, I get it's not exactly the most heart breaking thing I've been called and frankly this is all very over done, we can both be a little more grown up, but as Clint Eastwood once said, "Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining!'

You do amuse me DrG... "it's in the past as is this whole affair between yourself and I (for me anyway)" ..and yet you keep responding with numerous, lengthy replies. Not one to let things go that's for sure.

You also have a very peculiar definition of what abuse is. I'm sure you're mummy told you many times to 'not be an idiot' (for all the good it did), I'm guessing she never called you a 'dick' though. You may have spotted a light-hearted jibe in there, please do not cry over this as well.

You do realise that at a glance you've written more or less the same amount as I have. My definition of "in the past" in this respect is that, I do not hold a grudge over the fact your opinion differs from mine. The fact you continue to throw in little 'jibes' shows you'd be far more suited to https://www.youtube.com

If you want to try again and join in on further topics come join the latest videos, there is one about Warburton, I'm sure you can put your valuable opinion on that.

How good is Willie Le Roux!! I don't think I've seen anyone run like he does since the legendary Christian Cullen was carving up defences in the sacred Black jersey. That is a huge call, but I think it is warranted. AB's will have to be in top gear to contain him come the Rugby Championship. Nice win Boks!

Liam Williams is reckless and undeserving of that shirt but it wasn't his stupid 'tackle' that cost us that game it was the Welsh indiscipline as a whole. Charteris and Biggar's time in the bin was probably the biggest factor IMO.

..but really, people bleat on about 'discipline', the whole time, surely a lot of it comes down to the referee? It's not as if they were throwing punches or stamping on heads, the interpretation of the referee is always the deciding factor. A good ref officiates with common sense and lets the game flow, Steve Walsh didn't do this yesterday...all 3 yellow cards were harsh & unnecessary too imo.

"..but really, people bleat on about 'discipline', the whole time, surely a lot of it comes down to the referee?"

I can semi agree with this, and be generous in saying, that is true for the first yellow card. (In reality I could say it's only about the referee up until the first 'talking too'!) Then the rest falls on teams indiscipline.

No doubt you have played a game or two in your life and come across varying degrees of refereeing, it is up to you to adapt to that style of refereeing. If a professional cannot then; in the utmost respect, they don't deserve the shirt.

Walsh often uses common sense and often lets the game progress without showing cards, perhaps someone upstairs had a word with him.

Sorry but both those yellow cards were earned by the idiotic Welshmen who received them. You point out Biggar's, it could hardly have been more obvious that he was bringing the maul down! Watch it again. He grabs the saffer and then just pulls him to the ground. Thats a penalty anywhere on the park except 5-10m from the line, which it was, and after being pinged for infringements around the maul at least 4, 5 times in the previous few minutes.

'idiotic Welshmen'?? They're supposed to just let them score? All they were doing was trying to prevent the try being scored, it's instinctive. Yellow cards should be reserved for foul play, they change the game too much, awarding a penalty try is enough in these situations.

No need to be facetious, my point was there was no need for the ref to do both in that situation, it had a huge influence on the game. I meant foul play as in injuring an opponent/dangerous play, sometimes for cynical play, remember the ref had already just carded Charteris.

Biggar joined the front of the maul, only defender in the maul. SA ball carrier was 4 players back. Penalty try AND yellow does seem harsh. ?Potential Truck and trailer or obstruction too at the point Biggar joined?

"I meant foul play as in injuring an opponent/dangerous play, sometimes for cynical play, remember the ref had already just carded Charteris."

For crying out loud, you call someone out above and question whether they've been watching rugby long and you come out with a comment like that... If he'd just carded Charteris then surely Wales should of had the brains (they need that sponsor back!) and thought "hey ho, we've got the attention of Walsh, he's not afraid to dish out cards, be on your best behaviour for a little while"...

A yellow card is not only a punishment to the individual, it's a punishment to the team and a warning to the entire field.

How many times have you seen a referee give a yellow to one team, then soon after give a yellow to the other team for the EXACT same offence? It is a quite a common occurrence and it's usually accompanied with the words "this is exactly what he did down there and you've just done the same thing".. If you can't use your brains then you need to be wary of cards coming your way...

Not sure you fully understand what I'm saying, the ref could have given the penalty try earlier and got on with the game, the 7 points is more than enough, and then there's always the interpretation issue, was the attacking maul even legal in the first place? Cards are handed out much too easily these days, playing 2 players short at such a crucial time essentially ruins the game. But hey it's just an opinion, you don't have to like it or agree with it, just putting it out there.

If he'd given the penalty try earlier you'd then be complaining that he gave the penalty try to early. Was that maul legal?? Do you actually play rugby?! That's a textbook maul! There's no interpretation needed there, only rudimentary knowledge of the laws of the game. I agree that often cards are handed out too easily, but here I feel that both were deserved. Especially the second.

Obviously I'd have taken the penalty try by itself minus the 2 yellow cards, one yellow would have been sufficient. There are clearly many grey areas in the rules (or 'laws') of rugby union, particularly the rucks & mauls, denying this is denying reality. Given such ambiguity with the rules claiming to know with absolute certainty what the correct decision should be in these situations is silly.

I was watching the game with Spanish commentary and the Argentines noticed that actually the Welsh 7 (don't know his name, it wasn't Tipuric or Warburton) could also have received a yellow when Biggar was given one.

Anyone that takes an honest look at the video can see it for him/herself. Number 7 ignores the maul and attempts to tackle the ball carrier. Just a couple seconds later Biggar comes in and throws himself to the ground in a very obvious manner.

All this after the referee told the Welsh to stop bringing the maul down illegally twice if my memory doesn't fail me. I love the current Welsh team, North is awesome, Roberts and Davies make one of the greatest centres pairings, power and guile there, Halfpenny converts almost every kick and is the living embodiment that rugby is a game for all sizes, but this was a clear yellow and penalty try.

And lets hope the game can continue to be one for all players of all sizes. But I think law changes would have to be made for that to happen. Get rid of lifting, or at least amend to the original lifting laws (only support when the player jumps off the ground first and already is in the air) and bring back the lineout throw to the offending team on a penalty kick into touch. Perhaps a more vertical approach with the ball in hand in second phase,using forward rushes, which the All Blacks had down pat for decades, can suck in more defensive forwards to open up the mid-field again. Otherwise, the game looks so much more now like rugby league, which I don't like, with all these forwards fanning out across the pitch, who seem to all be about 6'2" or 6'3" and about 14 to 16 stone: in other words, mobile loose forwards. Is a really tall player necessary with the lineout laws? With less emphasis on the scrum, are short and squatty props and hookers needed anymore? There's too many markers for backs. And this tactic of running players ahead of the ball, again taken from rugby league, where it's legal (and it is not legal in rugby union, but is allowed anyway), seems counterproductive. I'd rather have supporters running behind the ball, not ahead, in which they are actually obstructing. If that's a strategy to counter a cluttered midfield, I don't think it's a good idea. Yeah, it seems to pay off in this video clip with tries, but reading the laws, it is illegal to run players as dummy runners so far out in front of the ball. I guess refs would only call a penalty if one of the dummy runners actually makes contact with a defender. I have seen that happen since this tactic came in vogue.

You don't seem to understand that as someone who plays second row/back row, I stand at 6'5 - 6'6 (depends on who is measuring). If my supporting players can lift a brick the same height as their opposite numbers, yet the opposition second row is 6'3, then I have the advantage. So yes, there is a great reason to have tall players in the lineouts.

As for loose forwards, are you really attempting to stop this? If you made a law where this was not allowed to happen (some way of policing it) you'd basically get a team that has a 6'5, 19 stone centre who can run like the wind, they pass it to him and watch him flatten the 'little' backs, because there would be no forward cover to assist the tackle....

There already has been, in international rugby, some very large centers and wings. Regarding flattening opposition, regardless of size of players involved, that's exactly what the game has devolved into in so many ways and in so much of any one single match. I'll still go by my argument that the current lineout laws are a joke, and way too many of them go uncontested, as do so many rucks and mauls because of the law changes going back to the mid-90's. I'd rather see defensive forwards fighting for the ball in mauls and rucks rather than fanning out to mark potential runner on the defensive side. I've been thinking of ways with current laws to break these defensive walls up, and I've seen some tactics being used just in viewing some of these video clips in the recent weeks. Obviously using quick ball is one way, but then pinpoint passing and using skip passes really is essential, as Australia proved against France, and those were brilliant tries to see. And whatever backline was formed (combinations of backs and forwards) off the previous play, it was flat and running near the opposition without running into it.
I can see using forward rushes much more, but avoid direct contact and off load to keep the ball moving instead of dying with it by going to ground to form a phony ruck and allowing the defense to fan out and over-mark. One of my old clubs I played with, back in the 80's practiced forward rushes (and we backs were part of the drill too: close order running and passing designed to keep the ball alive and avoid a breakdown). We had a few New Zealanders on the club.
You might think the game as it is looks great. I don't.

I think you're a little muddled, so you want to INCLUDE forwards in attacking play, but you get your back up when teams include forwards in defensive play by fanning out????

"and we backs were part of the drill too"

So really, you've just admitted right there why you're unqualified make judgements on lineouts...

Many lineouts are not worth contesting, it's a judgement call, on your own 5m line, it might be wise to set a good counter drive platform etc...

I personally think backs run to fast, I think we should go back to the old days when everyone wore kit that weighed half a ton and heavy old boots, that would slow the backs down a bit.... Am I equally unqualified to change your part of the game?

I have literally lost count of how many times I've seen players pushed/barged/shoulder charged out of play without the use of arms while running/diving for the line. Every time I have thought it should be a penalty. This is the first time I've ever seen it penalised, which is good. However the refs need to be more consistent, it seems like they just choose to ignore certain types of foul play while overly focussing on others.

yes!!! I'm not sure when but Irish fullback Kearney did it to an Aussie some time ago. I also remember Shanklin (Welsh) doing it to yet another Aussie years ago even as a try (Wallaby try that is) was being scored. Both instances went unpunished.

There are plenty more examples, they just don't come to mind right now. I was so glad to see this finally getting penalized, as it should be.

Pipo, the Irish example you cite was Rob Kearney shouldering Rocky Elsom in 2009. Elsom scored in the corner though despite the shoulder, so the referee erroneously didn't even think about it being foul play. You could also look at Juan Martin Hernandez blasting Alesana Tuilagi into touch with his shoulder and saving a try in a Stade Francais-Leicester match.

The difference with Williams though is that he smashed his elbow into the other player's head, whereas at least the other examples were fairly safe - albeit illegal - shoulder to shoulder affairs.

I think this try saving tackle by Toeava on Hape is also an example of a shoulder charge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afadbK_qxCI) which was referred to the TMO but not picked up. Please excuse the butchering of space by England.....

I don't think Hernandez or Toeava tackle were illegal? Definitely not Hernandezs' tackle - I think Toeava tackle was 'less ideal' but he has an arm round Hapes shoulder. Nice videos though, thank you for bringing them to light.

Actually, now that I think about it, the Hernandez tackle was pretty legal. At first glance I thought that since he sent him flying and didn't go with him that it was a shoulder-charge but I suppose the reason he didn't go down in the tackle with him was more due to the angles of running and speed with which they collided. Bad call by me.

It's another an example of officials interfering way too much in the game, he'd already given the opposition a penalty try (free 7 points), then makes them play (another) man short for 10 minutes...no need to do both.

the point of a penalty try is to act as a deterrent to players defending their line. It is a gift 7 points when a certain 5 would have been scored. The same thing with adding the yellow card on top of the penalty try-deterrent.
so the defending players options are the following:
1) legally stop the momentum or try.
2) let the try be scored without infringing and go back to restart trying to get the ball back.
3) infringe illegally expecting 1 of four outcomes a) ref does nothing-team gets to set their defense for next wave b) you get penalized - attacking team goes for lineout which is better than try c) yellow carded- penalty still better than 5 points and d) penalty try yellow card, worst outcome but lowest probability (depending on refs balls- most do not have it in them to bust out the penalty try)

Players defending their line in a game of rugby? Who'd have thought that? I hope the authorities come down hard on them for such behaviour, has absolutely no place in the game etc etc.

In all seriousness, we're actually seeing more and more penalty tries being awarded, personally I'd like to see less. I have this crazy, far-fetched idea that games should be decided by players and not officials....maybe I'm watching the wrong sport for that.

Granted, my wording in that opening remark was poorly constructed. I meant more in terms of illegally defending their line from an attacking team. (you got the idea).
I agree that there should be less penalty tries and less penalties in general for certain aspects of the game. I hate watching scrum penalties. just forces players to try and milk penalties.
But, there has to be a balance so that players do not get away constant infringements when under pressure and slow down the game illegally. professional sports is about the strategy both in defense or attack. giving away strategic penalties or gifting 3 points is always better than giving away tries.

Don't be silly. Walsh should have looked at the game and thought, "oh dear, poor Wales, they were doing really well and then I've sent off a couple of their players for 10 minutes and now South Africa look like they might be getting back in to the game. I think to ensure the Welsh get the victory they deserved for winning the game for most of the time, so I'll let them get away with everything until the final whistle, I mean I could blow the whistle now and end the game but that is a bit too obvious, I'll just basically not punish Wales for ANYTHING and hopefully the South Africans won't get angry when their hard work is illegally stopped"...

Just a thought on penalty tries, shouldn't the conversion kick be taken from where the try would have been scored? Just running under the posts like that to award it, you're basically giving them 7 points for free, teams should have to earn the extra 2 points imo.

Is that actually a question on something you don't understand? Or are you making reference to something you think should change with the laws?

The reason it's 7 points for free is because the try was inevitable, so what's the point in punishing the defending team by 'rewarding' the attacking team with 5 points, when 5 points was a complete guarantee...

A penalty try is basically saying "ignore that offending player and what would have happened?" well, you could argue that any team would have done their best to get under the posts, so that's where it's awarded...

Not all tries are scored under the posts though are they? The penalty try at the end of the game is a good example, Cornal Hendricks was clearly going to dive in at the corner, seems reasonable to me to have the resulting conversion taken from the same place. That's what generally happens when a try is scored right..?

That is exactly the point. The try would have been scored so defend legally or allow the 5 points with a difficult conversion attempt. But due to the indiscretion the conversion is made easier to deter players from foul play. Williams won't make that mistake again.

LMFAO...... compared to the South Africans he is Mother Tereasa chap!!

Look at the first test again and see what the Bok 14 did to Liam Williams after being bundled into touch...... full punch into the ribs infront of the line ref. No action taken by the officials. Still ..... that was a Bok doing it.... so that special kind of Official blindness come into it.

Fantastic job dragging an entire team through the mud to console your fears that you might actually have a hotheaded player on your hands with Liam Williams. I'd take a jab to the ribs any day over a sliding elbow to the jaw while looking the other direction.

The great thing for me was seeing a dominant "young" Welsh pack.... Samson Lee had a great game, he got stuck in and didn't pull any punches.

This match was a statement of intent..... RWC2015 is not far away and what better way to end this season..... the Boks were visibly shaken.... they really did look shell shocked at the end of that match.

Sorry but, are you joking? What better way to end the season? I think actually winning a match and not getting whipped in the first two tests might be a better way to end it. And you're talking about the next world cup? I don't know if you know something the rest of us don't or if you're just unrealistically optimistic.

Not a fan of Liam Williams, as soon as I knew it was him that made the tackle I knew it was all over.

The tackle that was needed to stop Hendricks is something that you see Halfpenny doing on an almost daily basis although Halfpenny has picked up the nasty habit of making try line tackles with his face for some reason.

Before contact had been made with the shoulder/elbow, making it an illegal tackle, the South African winger had already lost control of the ball because the Welsh tackler had dislodged it with his left arm - legally.
By all accounts I agree that there is no place for shoulder charging etc in the game, and that it needs to be penalised etc, but I'm borderline as to whether the right call was made here.

Say for instance: a Welsh player makes a runaway linebreak, and a South African player chases him down, with the initial momentum of the tackle causing the Welsh player to lose the ball forward. However after the ball is lost forward, but still during the tackle, the South African player holds onto the jersey of the Welsh player which prevents him from regathering the ball. Is the South African player penalised for the jersey pulling and a penalty try given?

Or, say the Welsh player loses control of the ball in the tackle, and the South African player strikes the Welsh player in the face after the tackle has been completed. What would happen there?

Maybe instead of giving a penalty try, Walsh should have shown the Welsh player red and given South Africa a penalty? I don't know, but not sure that the precedent set is the right one.

I see what you're getting at, but the difference here is that in the examples you give two separate actions happen, whereas in the case of Williams it was one, illegal action. You can argue that a split second before his elbow connected he dislodged the ball, but the action has to be considered in its entirety and not broken down millisecond by millisecond. He made an illegal tackle and in doing so caused the player to lose the ball and go into touch, and as a result, an illegal intervention led to the try not being scored.

Then, even if you were to look at it as being two acts, you could also say that he was able to dislodge the ball because of his illegal technique whereas if he had gone to make a normal tackle he might not have dislodged it. As well, you could argue that Hendricks saw this elbow coming towards his face and as a result his survival instinct took over and he loosened his grip on the ball thereby allowing it to be dislodged.

But the other thing is, I believe there is some call for the referee to basically make a decision on what WOULD have happened if that player (in this case Williams) had not been there at all...

So of course you're probably saying "if Williams had tackled properly the ball would have been dislodged" (which could be right), but because he didn't tackle properly, he gets taken out of the equation altogether, no benefit of the doubt, he is literally not included at all... So in that case, the last defender was North? I think... North missed the tackle and Hendricks is in...

So would it have been a try? Yes = Penalty try beneath the sticks - Sadly for Hendricks his name would not be on the score sheet.

So this elbow to the face was nothing compared to the Canadian's elbow to the Scots player's head, which did cause an injury. There was harm involved. The harm in this tackle was that a try wasn't scored, but a penalty try awarded for the offense. Yet plenty of posters defended the Canadian player. Yeah, I guess technically it was illegal, this tackle. He only wrapped one arm, not both. Seems there's a bit of hypocrisy here on this site.
On to another issue, I was really happy to see that the referee did not blow up a penalty when that Welsh forward went through the ruck, offside, but didn't, and I'll repeat didn't, affect ongoing play. No harm, no foul. The ref didn't even signal for an offside. He let play go on, and South Africa scored a try.

If that's the one you're referring too, then I defended the Canadian player because the law, imo was not designed to stop that sort of incident - view the comments and someone posts a link to an irish player 'leading with a forearm'! The other reason I defended it was because if you look at the picture for the incident you'll see the Scottish players face is against the Canadians forearm - and if you hold your arm in the same position that is one of the musclier parts of your arm, therefore fairly spongy...

The other reason for not liking Williams effort is because of the way he put in a moronic attempt at a try saving tackle which would have worked perfectly had he just put in a tackle...a normally dive, I mean he went far enough to actually dive into Hendricks, why didn't he do it properly? So the elbow was not so much the incident for me, it was the illegal and moronic attempt to save a try....

A runner can defend himself/herself by fending off, but of course there's the issue of dangerous play. So was the "fend off" of using an elbow to the head dangerous play? The Scot was injured, so on the surface it was dangerous play. I doubt a penalty would have been called several decades ago (maybe by some refs, but not many), and I like to reference the past because there wasn't so many cameras then to breakdown play after the fact, and certainly no TMOs. I doubt a penalty would have been called in a lower division club match. Technology, then, has made first class matches one of having Big Brother watching very carefully. It's become nearly impossible to do anything beyond the laws without being seen. In one way it's great, so that really horrible punches and kicks off the ball don't seem to happen anywhere near as much in first class rugby, and when they do the consequences are very severe. The downside is that perhaps too much is being seen, games are stopped and analyzed for several minutes while touch judges, TMOs, and referees decide if something a player has done warrants a penalty, yellow card, red card, etc., with a later citing and possible suspension.
It's the same with Williams tackle attempt. He did wrap one arm, but he didn't wrap both arms! I would have to assume that players in these international and first class matches know cameras are watching, and therefore should be aware that what they do is going to be seen, either in the present by the referee and touch judges, or afterwards by the cameras and TMOs. Hell, there's even a camera on the corner flag! That doesn't mean foul play is not ever going to happen again.

Are kidding? As the player wrapped the ball carier, the referee signaled him he was infringing and made him stop. Then he stretched his arm to indicate a penalty and gave the boks the advantage.
If it did not affect the play, it was because the referee did an excellent job to stop the infringement.

Which is better than blowing the whistle too early. I'll recheck to see if the referee did indicate advantage. I didn't see that, only the player going through, stopping and raising his arms (which isn't such a great idea, as it only signals that one is offside), and returning to his team's side of play, play continuing on, and the Boks scoring. But the point I am making is that in so many instances in a similar part of the pitch, near the defending team's goal line, play is whistled to a stop, and there's three points instead of five.